Artur Grabowski wrote:
...
> The real question is who's paying that guy. I guess any corporate
> owned asshole can publish random slander on the internet and call it
> "research".
Who gains? The pattern is so old it's been codified as "cui prodest
scelus is fecit", or a more modern variant "follow the money"
Who has to gain, politically or economically, by placement of
surveillance technology like Active Managment (AMT) in each CPU?
http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/articles/eng/1032.htm
Gates and Rumsfeld top my list of baddies. There are also Erik Prince
(Blackwater) or Thomas Swidarski (Diebold)+ Antonio Mugica(SmartMatic)+
other into voting fraud, or really any number of 'security' or
intelligence contracting firms now contracting for the US.
Kuro5hin pulled the libel, so is there any point in pursuing the origin?
If so, then what is the specific goal of such a time consuming pursuit
that makes it more important than coding/testing/writing documentation
and training materials?
-Lars
PS. To go on a tangent it's an interesting observation that several
have referred to the libel as slander. The former is written, the
latter is spoken. I guess it explains how we think about e-mail as a
form of communication and that it acts, in some contexts, as a surrogate
for speech to the point that it is perceived as speech. However, I
suspect that the Kuro5hin drivel counts as libel and not slander,
regardless. (IANAL)
